Creating Implementation Legislation Legal Obligation
504
MIMBAR HUKUM Volume 28, Nomor 3, Oktober 2016, Halaman 497-511
which expressly mandates the harmonization of international law that have been ratiied
acceded contributed to the dormancy of post- ratiied international agreements and treaty.
Perspective of Practice in Indonesia,
there are an abundance of dormant inter- national agreements and treaties that had
been ratiied, and have not been followed by alignment process in national law. This stacks
of dormant international agreements causes uncertainty to which international treaty are
applicable and binding in the case where there are 2 or more legal products regulating
the same materials. For example, Indonesia ratiied United Nation Convention on the
Law of the Sea 1982 which was integrated by
Indonesia vis-à-vis Law Number 17 of 1985. However under the UNCLOS Ratiication
Data in United Nations, Indonesia was
only declared state parties of UNCLOS since 3 March 1986,
23
which at the time the Governmental Regulation Number 4 Year
1960 was still applicable. Both of this legal products are equally
binding for Indonesia, however there cannot be duality of law, lest it would create legal
uncertainty, and ratiication of international products does not necessarily negates the
applicable and older legal regime. Both UNCLOS and Indonesia’s Government
Regulation regulate the same things regarding the archipelagic nation. But between
these two legal products, there are several differences, one of which is associated with
the determination of archipelagic sea lanes passage which was not accommodated in
Law No. 4 of of 1960. The above case illustrates that
Indonesia have not successfully implemented harmonization of international treaty that had
been ratiiedacceded by Indonesia, to this extent, even the database of the International
Treaty in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has not been able to show any signiicant
harmonization between TreatiesAgreement that had been ratiiedacceded with the
respective national law.
Therefore the authors recommend that that towards treaties that had been
ratiied or acceded, the government should maximize the plan for integration and
harmonization of such commitment into national legal framework. It would altogether
well if such provision contains: Firstly,
Harmonizing Provision which mandated that any provisions of international treaties are
to be adjusted in a way that are consistent to the national laws speciically ratiied
by Ratiication Laws, Secondly, Time range or time limit to conduct adjustments.
Thirdly, Clause of Appointment of agencies responsible for adjustments. And lastly, a
transitional provisions that provide legal certainty during the existence of dual laws.
The aforementioned clauses should ideally also be contained in the Law on
International Treaties, which should be given a its own section, particularly a section that
are speciically meant to cover questions relating to harmonization and integration,
The best solution other than this would be an actively accommodate future ratiication
products with harmonization clause.